[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4587-4591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2495]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4588]]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-5416-7]


Air Quality; Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic 
Compounds--Exclusion of Perchloroethylene

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action revises EPA's definition of volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) for purposes of preparing State implementation plans 
(SIP's) to attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 
for ozone under title I of the Clean Air Act (Act) and for the Federal 
implementation plan (FIP) for the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. 
This action adds perchloroethylene (perc), also known as 
tetrachloroethylene, to the list of compounds excluded from the 
definition of VOC on the basis that it has negligible photochemical 
reactivity. Perc is a solvent commonly used in dry cleaning, maskant 
operations, and degreasing operations. This rule results in more 
accurate assessment of ozone formation potential and will assist States 
in avoiding exceedances for the ozone health standard. The rule does 
this by causing control efforts to focus on compounds which are actual 
ozone precursors, rather than giving credit for control of a compound 
which has negligible photochemical reactivity.
    Perc will continue to be regulated as a hazardous air pollutant 
under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. EPA has already issued 
regulations limiting emissions of perc from dry cleaning and 
halogenated solvent cleaning and as a feedstock in the organic chemical 
manufacturing industry.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective March 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to section 307(d)(1) (B), (J), and (U) of the Act, 
42 U.S.C. section 7607(d)(1) (B), (J), and (U), this action is subject 
to the procedural requirements of section 307(d). Therefore, EPA has 
established a public docket for this action, A-92-09, which is 
available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Johnson, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards 
Division (MD-15), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone (919) 541-
5245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 8, 1977, EPA published a recommended policy on control of 
VOC (42 FR 3513) which discussed the photochemical reactivity of 
organic compounds and their role in the formation of tropospheric 
ozone. This policy statement identified several compounds that are 
considered to be of negligible photochemical reactivity and which are 
not required to be controlled in order to prevent the formation of 
tropospheric ozone. The policy was subsequently amended on June 4, 1979 
(44 FR 32042), May 16, 1980 (45 FR 32424), July 22, 1980 (45 FR 48941), 
January 18, 1989 (54 FR 1988), and March 18, 1991 (56 FR 11418) to add 
compounds to those already recognized by EPA as having negligible 
photochemical reactivity.
    On October 24, 1983, EPA proposed to add perc to the list of 
negligibly-reactive compounds which would be exempt from regulation 
under SIP's to attain the NAAQS for ozone. This proposal was based upon 
a laboratory testing program that investigated perc's role in the 
tropospheric ozone problem. The study concluded that perc contributes 
less to the ambient ozone problem than equal concentrations of ethane 
(one of the negligibly-reactive organic compounds previously exempted 
from ozone SIP controls). The details of this investigation are 
contained in the EPA report, ``Photochemical Reactivity of 
Perchloroethylene,'' EPA-600/3-83-001, January 1983. A copy has been 
placed in the docket (A-92-09) for today's action.
    In the October 24, 1983 proposal, comments were solicited on the 
proposed action. The EPA received 20 comments on the proposal. None of 
the commenters questioned the technical judgment that perc is 
negligibly reactive and has an insignificant impact on ozone formation. 
However, there was quite a divergence of opinion as to the action EPA 
should take in response to the new findings on the reactivity of perc, 
many of which related to concerns about perc as a toxic air pollutant. 
Because of these concerns, EPA determined at that time to take no final 
action on the proposal.
    Subsequently, the Act as amended listed perc as a hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) under section 112(b). Pursuant to section 112(d), EPA 
has issued national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(NESHAP) for two major perc source categories: perc dry cleaning, 
September 22, 1993 (58 FR 49354), and halogenated solvent cleaning, 
December 2, 1994 (59 FR 61801). Additional releases which may result 
from perc production or use as a feedstock are addressed by the NESHAP 
for the hazardous organics (chemicals) industry promulgated April 22, 
1994 (59 FR 19402). These two applications, together with the use of 
perc as feedstock in chemical production, account for 90% of current 
perc production. Pursuant to section 112(e) of the amended Act, the EPA 
will be issuing hazardous pollutant emissions standards for various 
other categories including several other perc sources through November 
15, 2000. On January 28, 1992, the Halogenated Solvents Industry 
Alliance (HSIA) petitioned EPA to exempt perc from regulation as an 
ozone precursor under the Act. This request was based on HSIA's 
contention that perc is negligibly photochemically reactive and does 
not contribute to tropospheric ozone formation. The HSIA identified, as 
the technical basis for its contention that perc is negligibly 
reactive, the October 24, 1983 proposal (48 FR 49097) by EPA to amend 
its ``Recommended Policy on Control of Organic Compounds'' to exempt 
perc from regulation on the basis of its negligible photochemical 
reactivity.
    On February 3, 1992 (57 FR 3941), pursuant to a proposed rule 
issued March 18, 1991 (56 FR 11418), EPA promulgated a general 
definition of VOC (40 CFR 51.100(s)) as part of EPA's regulations 
governing the development of SIP's. That action also incorporated the 
VOC definition into various SIP-related rules, including EPA's new 
source review rules and the FIP rules for the Chicago area. This 1992 
regulatory definition superseded the July 8, 1977 policy statement as 
well as the subsequent revisions to that policy. In accordance with the 
policy on which it was based, the regulatory definition excludes a 
number of organic compounds from the definition of VOC on the basis 
that they are negligibly photochemically reactive and therefore 
contribute negligibly to tropospheric ozone formation. This list of 
negligibly-reactive compounds contained the compounds originally 
identified in the 1977 policy statement plus other compounds that have 
been recognized by EPA subsequent to the 1977 policy statement as 
having negligible photochemical reactivity. Further, EPA has revised 
this definition twice through rulemaking (59 FR 50693 and 60 FR 

[[Page 4589]]
31633). Perc was not included in the list of negligibly photochemically 
reactive compounds in this definition.
    On October 26, 1992, EPA proposed to revise its definition of VOC 
(40 CFR 51.100(s)) by adding perc to the list of compounds that are 
regarded as negligibly photochemically reactive. Final action based on 
that October 26, 1992 proposal is being taken today.

II. Comments on Proposal and EPA Responses

    In accordance with section 307(d) of the Act, as amended in 1990, 
today's action is accompanied by a response to each of the significant 
comments, criticisms, and new data submitted in written or oral 
presentations during the comment period. Eight commenters (a labor 
union, an environmental organization, a municipal government, two trade 
associations, and three manufacturing companies) submitted written 
comments in response to EPA's October 26, 1992 proposal. Most of the 
comments support the proposed action. Copies of these comments are 
located in the docket (A-92-09) for this action. Significant comments 
and EPA's responses are summarized below. Finally, in the proposal for 
today's action, EPA indicated that interested persons could request 
that EPA hold a public hearing on the proposed action (see section 
307(d)(5)(ii) of the Act). The EPA did not receive any such requests 
for a public hearing and, therefore, did not hold one.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested that the proposal should be 
delayed or withdrawn until it has been established that the public 
health is adequately protected by controls on emissions of perc from 
all sources. This concern is brought about, in part, by the fact that 
perc is listed as a HAP in section 112 of the Act. These commenters 
refer to the toxicity hazard of the compound and to the possibility 
that it may be a human carcinogen. One of these commenters stated that 
there are sources of perc, other than dry cleaning, for which EPA has 
not yet proposed NESHAP which would define the maximum available 
control technology level of control for the source. Such sources 
include degreasing, use in paints and architectural coatings, 
adhesives, use for maskants in the aerospace industry, and 
miscellaneous uses in the manufacture of aerosol spray paints and 
cleaners, pharmaceuticals, textiles, printing inks, and dielectric 
fluids for power transformers. These sources will not be controlled as 
VOC sources if perc is excluded from the definition of VOC.(Note--The 
NESHAP for halogenated solvent cleaning had not yet been promulgated 
when this comment was submitted.)

    Response: The EPA's purpose in promulgation of the general 
definition of VOC (40 CFR 51.100(s)) is for use in the preparation of 
SIP's designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS for ozone. That 
definition of VOC lists several compounds which are considered to have 
negligible photochemical reactivity and, therefore, are exempt from the 
VOC definition. Based on the criteria used to judge the reactivity of 
compounds for this list, EPA has determined that perc should be added 
to the list of compounds as not contributing substantially to the 
formation of ground level ozone. Further, EPA believes that based on 
perc's non-reactivity it is inappropriate to allow States to continue 
to take credit for perc reductions in ozone non-attainment planning.
    Compounds that are defined as being HAP are required to be 
controlled under section 112 of the Act which calls for EPA to develop 
a NESHAP for sources of the listed compounds. Perc is listed as a HAP 
in section 112 of the Act. The EPA believes that the control of HAP, 
including perc, under section 112 of the Act is the proper approach to 
controlling these emissions. EPA shares the concerns regarding perc's 
toxicity. Acute and chronic inhalation exposure to perc results in 
central nervous system effects. Further, EPA's science advisory board 
(SAB) has advised the Agency that perc should be classified as a 
carcinogen; the SAB found that the scientific evidence of 
carcinogenicity falls on the continuum between ``B2'' probable and a 
``C'' possible. For these reasons EPA believes that regulation under 
section 112 of the Clean Air Act is appropriate. As noted previously, 
EPA already has taken steps to regulate the great majority of perc 
emissions and plans to issue further regulations for the remaining 
major sources which release perc to the atmosphere. Further, EPA has 
the authority to regulate additional source categories--if EPA 
identifies any such sources. EPA today reaffirms its intention to 
ensure that adequate public health protection from perc emissions is 
provided through these programs.
    Today's action improves our ability to provide public health 
protection from the effects of ground level ozone. The rule does this 
by causing control efforts to focus on compounds which are actual ozone 
precursors, rather than giving credit for control of a compound which 
has negligible photochemical reactivity. And since the Agency already 
has made substantial progress in issuing necessary NESHAPs, EPA does 
not agree that the proposal to add perc to the negligibly reactive list 
in the definition of VOC should be delayed until all evaluations of 
perc emissions under section 112 of the Act are complete. Further, 
representatives of trade associations for manufacturers and end-users 
of perchloroethylene have stated that they believe that 
perchloroethylene consumption in consumer products and related products 
(and therefore associated emissions) will not increase dramatically as 
a result of this action. We have received commitments from industry 
associations to survey or otherwise track how consumption of 
perchloroethylene in these kinds of products changes. Should EPA become 
aware of significant increases in perchloroethylene emissions or in 
public exposure from such sources, EPA will then consider appropriate 
regulatory action.
    Comment: One commenter noted that exempting perc as a VOC would 
mean that the control techniques guideline (CTG) for perc dry cleaning 
(``Control of Volatile Organics Emissions from Perchloroethylene Dry 
Cleaning Systems''; EPA 450/2-78-050, December 1978) would no longer 
apply. In addition, the proposed NESHAP for the dry cleaning industry 
(56 FR 64382, December 9, 1991) would exempt many small sources that 
the CTG covers. Therefore, the public will have greater exposure to a 
suspected carcinogen than if perc continues to be controlled as a VOC 
for purposes of meeting reasonably available control technology. 
(Note--Since these comments were received, the dry cleaning NESHAP has 
been promulgated.)
    Response: EPA is confident that the recently promulgated NESHAP 
increases public health protection above levels achieved by the 
formerly applicable CTG. It is true that the NESHAP for dry cleaning 
exempts small-sized dry cleaners from additional control requirements 
for process emissions, albeit fewer small sources than initially 
proposed. The decision to limit requirements on these smallest sources 
was made based on deliberations considering the extreme impacts of the 
control costs on these very small sources. All sources must now comply 
with pollution prevention requirements such as leak detection and 
repair. EPA further notes that the control requirements for most 
sources are considerably more stringent under the recent NESHAP than 
under the CTG. The NESHAP results in nationwide decreases in perc 
emissions of 32,400 Mg (35,700 T) each year beyond controls existing 
due to the CTG or other State rules. 

[[Page 4590]]

    Comment: One commenter cited as unfair the section of the proposed 
rule change that would prohibit the use of perc emission reduction 
credits (ERC) which were achieved prior to the proposed revision as VOC 
offsets or in netting transactions. The commenter asserted that such a 
prohibition would have a negative financial impact on companies that 
spent money in good faith to reduce perc emissions and to bank 
emissions credits prior to the rule change. A second commenter 
suggested that treating perc as a VOC may interfere with attainment of 
the ozone NAAQS. This second commenter attached a January 8, 1992 
letter from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District to EPA which 
took a critical view of having to issue ERC for substantial reductions 
in emissions of perc. This letter said:

    Under the existing VOC definition, these ERC's may now be used 
to offset emission increases from the new sources of VOC whose 
photochemical reactivity is not negligible, resulting in a net 
increase in ozone precursors. The use of perchloroethylene ERC's as 
offsets exacerbates the District's severe ozone nonattainment 
problem since the emission increase in reactive compounds would not 
be truly offset.

    Response: The EPA is deferring its decision concerning whether 
credits for perc, which were banked prior to today's action, may be 
used in future netting, offsetting or trading transactions with 
reactive VOC. Because of the potential impact that banked emissions 
could have on attainment demonstrations and reasonable further progress 
showings, EPA needs to conduct further discussions with States on this 
issue.
    Comment: One commenter supported the withdrawal of the appropriate 
CTG's simultaneously with any final rulemaking.
    Response: There are two CTG's which refer to perc, the solvent 
metal cleaning CTG and the perc dry cleaning CTG (``Control of Volatile 
Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning,'' EPA-450/2-77-022, 
November 1977, and ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from 
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Systems,'' EPA-450/2-78-050, December 
1978). The solvent metal cleaning CTG discusses a number of other 
solvents in addition to perc, and the technology discussed in this CTG 
would often apply to any of several solvents that are used for 
degreasing. The perc dry cleaning CTG is aimed specifically at 
controlling perc.
    Today's action in promulgating this final rule means that, for 
purposes of ozone control, the perc dry cleaning CTG no longer has the 
legal status of a CTG. The solvent metal cleaning CTG is no longer 
considered to be a CTG for controlling perc emissions. However, the 
solvent metal cleaning CTG is still applicable as a CTG in regards to 
all other solvents which are VOC. Although these two documents are no 
longer regarded as CTG's as related to perc, they remain effective as 
technical guidance documents; States may still use the documents as 
sources of technical information when developing rules to control toxic 
materials.

III. Final Action

    Today's final action is based upon the material in Docket No. A-92-
09 and EPA's review and consideration of all comments received during 
the public comment period. As provided in EPA's October 26, 1992 
proposal and as modified in response to comments described above, EPA 
hereby amends its definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude 
perchloroethylene (also known as tetrachloroethylene) as a VOC for 
ozone SIP purposes. The revised definition will also apply in the 
Chicago ozone nonattainment area pursuant to the 40 CFR 52.741(a)(3) 
definition of volatile organic material or volatile organic compounds. 
States are not obligated to exclude from control as a VOC those 
compounds that EPA has found to be negligibly reactive. However, after 
the effective date of this final action, EPA will not enforce measures 
controlling perc as part of a federally-approved ozone SIP. In 
addition, after the effective date of this final action, States may not 
take credit for controlling perc in their ozone control strategies.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities because it relaxes current regulatory requirements rather than 
imposing new ones. The EPA has determined that this rule is not 
``significant'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is, 
therefore, not subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review. 
This action does not contain any information collection requirements 
subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed 
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in 
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to 
State, local and/or tribal government(s) in the aggregate. Since 
today's action is deregulatory in nature and does not impose any 
mandate upon any source, the cost of such mandates will not result in 
estimated annual costs of $100 million or more.
    Assuming this rulemaking is subject to section 317 of the Act, the 
Administrator concludes, weighing the Agency's limited resources and 
other duties, that it is not practicable to conduct an extensive 
economic impact assessment of today's action since this rule will relax 
current regulatory requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator simply 
notes that any costs of complying with today's action, any inflationary 
or recessionary effects of the regulation, and any impact on the 
competitive standing of small businesses, on consumer costs, or on 
energy use, will be less than or at least not more than the impact that 
existed before today's action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 26, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF 
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. Section 51.100 is amended by revising paragraph (s)(1) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec. 51.100  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (s) * * *
    (1) This includes any such organic compound other than the 
following, which have been determined to have negligible photochemical 
reactivity: methane; ethane; methylene chloride (dichloromethane); 
1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform); 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluoroethane (CFC-113); trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11); 
dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12); 

[[Page 4591]]
chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22); trifluoromethane (HFC-23); 1,2-
dichloro 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-114); chloropentafluoroethane 
(CFC-115); 1,1,1-trifluoro 2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123); 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a); 1,1-dichloro 1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b); 
1-chloro 1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b); 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124); pentafluoroethane (HFC-125); 1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134); 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a); 1,1-
difluoroethane (HFC-152a); parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF); cyclic, 
branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes; acetone; 
perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene) and perfluorocarbon compounds 
which fall into these classes:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-2495 Filed 2-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P